Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Game - Battleground God
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 46 of 79 (458033)
02-26-2008 9:33 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by Modulous
02-23-2008 4:00 PM


Re: what is rational then?
So I see it saying 'is it a rational belief?'
Pretty much the way I see it on 10, but 14 doesn't ask the same question.
In 14 it asks 'is it belief, not rational?'
The problem is that you have limited options with the true\false format, and thus you are stuck with either saying:
(1) true -- it is belief devoid of rationality
(2) true -- it is belief more than rationality
(3) false -- it is both belief and rationality
(4) false -- it is rationality more than belief
(5) false -- it is rational devoid of belief
Right - the epistemological assumption is what leads to the conclusion. If you conclude that the Nessie case is rational, but you use a contradictory epistemological assumption in the God case to conclude that it is not rational - there is a contradiction.
Thus we know there are elements of both, so we can eliminate (1) and (5) above as a valid answers. You are left with gray answers, of which (3) is a false negative ... you are left choosing which is more critical to the conclusion -- the belief element or the rational element.
To be consistent you have to answer true. You've already admitted it is a belief (in 10 and above), and you've noted that it is the assumption that is critical to the conclusion.
Message 41

10. When you have a belief that is not supported or contradicted by loads of evidence and logic - is it rationality to conclude
  • the belief is true
  • the belief is false

    14. When you have a belief that is not supported or contradicted by loads of evidence and logic - is it more a matter of faith (the confident belief in the truth of your conclusion) or one of rationality to conclude
  • the belief is true
  • the belief is false

  • For me, the answer to both questions is "yes" to both options, and the only way to show this is to answer "true" to both 10 and 14. Only that way does the answer to 10 modify and inform the answer to 14.
    Enjoy.
    Edited by RAZD, : sp

    we are limited in our ability to understand
    by our ability to understand
    RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
    ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
    to share.


    • • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 45 by Modulous, posted 02-23-2008 4:00 PM Modulous has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 47 by Modulous, posted 02-26-2008 9:49 PM RAZD has replied

      
    Modulous
    Member
    Posts: 7801
    From: Manchester, UK
    Joined: 05-01-2005


    Message 47 of 79 (458037)
    02-26-2008 9:49 PM
    Reply to: Message 46 by RAZD
    02-26-2008 9:33 PM


    Re: what is rational then?
    In 14 it asks 'is it belief, not rational?'
    The problem is that you have limited options with the true\false format, and thus you are stuck with either saying:
    When I see that it is only true/false I conclude by context that the two options presented are meant to be exclusive - so if possible I try and interpret the text that way. In 14 it asks 'is it faith or rational', so I take it to imply that is asking if atheism is a faith-based belief or a rational-based belief.
    To be consistent you have to answer true. You've already admitted it is a belief (in 10 and above)
    I understand, but I still disagree. Of course it is a belief. The question is, is it rational or faith-based? If the first one is rational, so is the second one.
    Thus we know there are elements of both, so we can eliminate (1) and (5) above as a valid answers.
    That is, assuming they are using faith to mean 'any philosophical assumption'. That doesn't seem implied by the questions, and it seems to run counter to normal usage. I'm not saying it is entirely invalid, and I'm not saying that the quiz is 100% unambiguous. However, I am saying that it seems to be something of a stretch, some gymnastics, are required to find the kind of problem with this question that you see.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 46 by RAZD, posted 02-26-2008 9:33 PM RAZD has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 48 by RAZD, posted 02-26-2008 10:27 PM Modulous has replied

      
    RAZD
    Member (Idle past 1404 days)
    Posts: 20714
    From: the other end of the sidewalk
    Joined: 03-14-2004


    Message 48 of 79 (458043)
    02-26-2008 10:27 PM
    Reply to: Message 47 by Modulous
    02-26-2008 9:49 PM


    Re: what is rational then?
    If the first one is rational, so is the second one.
    And it is still a belief.
    However, I am saying that it seems to be something of a stretch, some gymnastics, are required to find the kind of problem with this question that you see.
    It's in the words Mod, there is a difference between 10 and 14 that makes them different questions.
    14 asks you to distinguish between the belief part and the rational part, 10 doesn't.
    Of course it is a belief. The question is, is it rational or faith-based? If the first one is rational, so is the second one.
    It's belief. The question is, is it a belief or a fact? If the first one is a belief so is the second.
    Enjoy.

    we are limited in our ability to understand
    by our ability to understand
    RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
    ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
    to share.


    • • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 47 by Modulous, posted 02-26-2008 9:49 PM Modulous has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 50 by Modulous, posted 02-27-2008 6:34 AM RAZD has replied

      
    compmage
    Member (Idle past 5152 days)
    Posts: 601
    From: South Africa
    Joined: 08-04-2005


    Message 49 of 79 (458075)
    02-27-2008 4:41 AM


    Zero hits and zero bullets. I remember taking the test a few years ago with the same result.
    Also did the Do-It-Yourself God test, though it wasn't much of a test since I don't think that any of the attributes mentioned is an absolute requirement so without selecting any attributes I couldn't really contradict myself.

      
    Modulous
    Member
    Posts: 7801
    From: Manchester, UK
    Joined: 05-01-2005


    Message 50 of 79 (458084)
    02-27-2008 6:34 AM
    Reply to: Message 48 by RAZD
    02-26-2008 10:27 PM


    Re: what is rational then?
    And it is still a belief.
    Yes, I think we agree on that don't we?
    14 asks you to distinguish between the belief part and the rational part, 10 doesn't.
    As I said, I understand you but I don't think that is the most parsimonious reading of it. 14 is asking you is the belief in the absence of god a matter of faith (and not a matter of rationality). 10 is asking if the belief in the absence of Nessie is a matter of rationality.
    It's belief. The question is, is it a belief or a fact?
    Facts in your world are near non-existent if they are contrasted with belief. It is a belief that the sun exists, it is a belief that I have a pet cat, it is a belief that when I die I will meet my departed family members. Reading your words here would imply some kind of Kantian divide between noumena and phenomena in your thinking.
    Now - given we agree that believing that Nessie exists is a belief by definition, and we probably agree that the structure of 14 implies that atheism is a belief, the question is not of facts. Facts are irrelevant to the discussion.
    There are different kinds of belief. For example there are beliefs which are rational. And beliefs that are not rational (for instance, beliefs that based solely on a strong conviction that they are true and nothing else - aka faith).
    The questions in the little game don't ask us "is belief belief"? Question 10 tells us that it is a belief. Question 14 implies that it is, and I'm willing to go along with it. It asks us about that belief, it asks us if it is rational. In the first case (10) you agree that it is a rational belief. In the second one (14) you answered that it was 'true' that it was 'not rational'
    So anyway, I'm still a little unsure: I understand your reading - though it requires mental squinting for me with a mental turning of the head sideways and really trying. Do you understand mine?

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 48 by RAZD, posted 02-26-2008 10:27 PM RAZD has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 51 by RAZD, posted 02-27-2008 10:14 PM Modulous has replied

      
    RAZD
    Member (Idle past 1404 days)
    Posts: 20714
    From: the other end of the sidewalk
    Joined: 03-14-2004


    Message 51 of 79 (458243)
    02-27-2008 10:14 PM
    Reply to: Message 50 by Modulous
    02-27-2008 6:34 AM


    Re: what is rational then?
    I understand your reading - .... Do you understand mine?
    Not really. I can't see how those two questions can possibly be the same.
    No mental squinting or contortions on my part, they are different. The only way I see you parsimoniously parsing the questions to get your answers is by leaving parts out, parts that relate to the questions asked. Removing critical elements is not parsimonious.
    And beliefs that are not rational (for instance, beliefs that based solely on a strong conviction that they are true and nothing else - aka faith).
    Such as the belief that the evidence will continue to be negative?
    Enjoy.

    we are limited in our ability to understand
    by our ability to understand
    RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
    ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
    to share.


    • • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 50 by Modulous, posted 02-27-2008 6:34 AM Modulous has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 57 by Modulous, posted 02-28-2008 7:37 AM RAZD has replied

      
    Sour
    Member (Idle past 2247 days)
    Posts: 63
    From: I don't know but when I find out there will be trouble. (Portsmouth UK)
    Joined: 07-27-2005


    Message 52 of 79 (458253)
    02-28-2008 12:08 AM


    Brilliant link.
    I also took two bullets on the justifying belief issue, I don't agree with them.
    quote:
    It is justifiable to base one's beliefs about the external world on a firm, inner conviction, regardless of the external evidence, or lack of it, for the truth or falsity of these convictions.
    Isn't a 'firm inner conviction' a belief?
    Answered false.
    quote:
    The serial rapist Peter Sutcliffe had a firm, inner conviction that God wanted him to rape and murder prostitutes. He was, therefore, justified in believing that he was carrying out God's will in undertaking these actions.
    Answered true.
    quote:
    Earlier you claimed that it is not justifiable to base one's beliefs about the external world on a firm, inner-conviction, paying no regard to the external evidence, or lack of it, for the truth or falsity of this conviction. But now you say that the rapist Peter Sutcliffe was justified in basing his beliefs about God's will solely on precisely such a conviction.
    I say no such thing. I say that he is justified in believing that his actions are justified by his beliefs. In fact, the second sentence of the question, "He was, therefore, justified in believing that he was carrying out God's will in undertaking these actions." is redundant. The first sentence states that he believed it was God's will. Am I meant to judge whether he actually did believe it?
    Maybe I'm missing something. Seems like I'm meant to think that just because HIS beliefs are irrational he doesn't actually believe them.

    Replies to this message:
     Message 53 by compmage, posted 02-28-2008 12:43 AM Sour has replied

      
    compmage
    Member (Idle past 5152 days)
    Posts: 601
    From: South Africa
    Joined: 08-04-2005


    Message 53 of 79 (458261)
    02-28-2008 12:43 AM
    Reply to: Message 52 by Sour
    02-28-2008 12:08 AM


    quote:
    Maybe I'm missing something.
    I think so, at least the way I read the question.
    quote:
    The serial rapist Peter Sutcliffe had a firm, inner conviction that God wanted him to rape and murder prostitutes. He was, therefore, justified in believing that he was carrying out God's will in undertaking these actions.
    I have bolded the part I think is important. The question is asking if he is justified in believing, not if that belief justifies his actions.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 52 by Sour, posted 02-28-2008 12:08 AM Sour has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 55 by Sour, posted 02-28-2008 1:01 AM compmage has replied

      
    Sour
    Member (Idle past 2247 days)
    Posts: 63
    From: I don't know but when I find out there will be trouble. (Portsmouth UK)
    Joined: 07-27-2005


    Message 54 of 79 (458264)
    02-28-2008 12:54 AM
    Reply to: Message 9 by RAZD
    02-19-2008 10:07 AM


    quote:
    :15. The serial rapist Peter Sutcliffe had a firm, inner conviction that God wanted him to rape and murder prostitutes. He was, therefore, justified in believing that he was carrying out God's will in undertaking these actions.
    The question is whether he was justified in believing that he was carrying out God's will, based on a a firm, inner conviction.
    You later in this thread define belief as :
    be·lief -noun1. The mental act, condition, or habit of placing trust or confidence in another: My belief in you is as strong as ever.
    2. Mental acceptance of and conviction in the truth, actuality, or validity of something: His explanation of what happened defies belief.
    3. Something believed or accepted as true, especially a particular tenet or a body of tenets accepted by a group of persons.
    (American Heritage Dictionary, 2008)
    So isn't 'firm inner conviction' the same as belief?
    Which would mean that the question is whether he was justified in believing that he was carrying out God's will based on a belief.
    What that conviction actually was and what the subsequent behavior involved are irrelevant to the question of whether he was justified in his belief or not.
    Right, I get that it's meant to be about whether his initial belief is justified, but isn't the conviction the same thing as his belief?
    He believed it, but is he justified in believing that he believed it?
    I'm having comprehension problems with this question.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 9 by RAZD, posted 02-19-2008 10:07 AM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

      
    Sour
    Member (Idle past 2247 days)
    Posts: 63
    From: I don't know but when I find out there will be trouble. (Portsmouth UK)
    Joined: 07-27-2005


    Message 55 of 79 (458268)
    02-28-2008 1:01 AM
    Reply to: Message 53 by compmage
    02-28-2008 12:43 AM


    Right, I think I understand why my answer was wrong. I'm making a mistake by putting too much weight on the first sentence and thinking that it says he believes that God wanted him to do these things (which it does right?). The bit you bolded makes it clear, if that's all the question is meant to be about.
    The way it is phrased is confusing, it doesn't seem to be asking if his 'firm inner conviction' is justified, but if his belief in his own 'firm inner conviction' is.
    Aye yay yay, much ado about nothing

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 53 by compmage, posted 02-28-2008 12:43 AM compmage has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 56 by compmage, posted 02-28-2008 5:48 AM Sour has not replied
     Message 58 by RAZD, posted 02-28-2008 7:19 PM Sour has not replied

      
    compmage
    Member (Idle past 5152 days)
    Posts: 601
    From: South Africa
    Joined: 08-04-2005


    Message 56 of 79 (458287)
    02-28-2008 5:48 AM
    Reply to: Message 55 by Sour
    02-28-2008 1:01 AM


    quote:
    Right, I think I understand why my answer was wrong. I'm making a mistake by putting too much weight on the first sentence and thinking that it says he believes that God wanted him to do these things (which it does right?).
    I does, but it emphasises that his basis for that belief is a 'firm, inner conviction'. Which ties the question into the earlier question about whether or not it is justifiable to base once's beliefs on a 'firm, inner conviction'.
    At least, this is how I understood it.
    ABE: To illistrate:
    If I believe that you are about to kill me then I am justified in killing you first, in self defence, based on that belief.
    If my belief that you are about to kill me stems for the fact that you shouted "I'm going to kill you" and then came at me with a meat cleaver, then that belief is justified. If however, it stems from the fact that you are wearing a pink shirt and said "Hello", then that belief isn't justified.
    I think that, and this is just my opinion, most people are justified in their actions based on their beliefs. The problem lies with the justification for those beliefs.
    In my example above, I would be stupid not to defend myself if I though you were about to kill me. That doesn't mean that my belief that you are about to kill me is justified though.
    Edited by compmage, : No reason given.
    Edited by compmage, : No reason given.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 55 by Sour, posted 02-28-2008 1:01 AM Sour has not replied

      
    Modulous
    Member
    Posts: 7801
    From: Manchester, UK
    Joined: 05-01-2005


    Message 57 of 79 (458292)
    02-28-2008 7:37 AM
    Reply to: Message 51 by RAZD
    02-27-2008 10:14 PM


    Not really. I can't see how those two questions can possibly be the same.
    No mental squinting or contortions on my part, they are different. The only way I see you parsimoniously parsing the questions to get your answers is by leaving parts out, parts that relate to the questions asked. Removing critical elements is not parsimonious.
    By answering true, you are explicitly saying that it (not believing in the existence of x) is not rational when it comes to God but it is rational when it comes to monsters. That is the reading as far as I can see it (and this is confirmed by the stated intent of the authors - you have to accept that my interpretation successfully uncovered the intended meaning which in communications is the most important part).
    What critical element am I missing from the actual statements?
    quote:
    If, despite years of trying, no strong evidence or argument has been presented to show that there is a Loch Ness monster, it is rational to believe that such a monster does not exist.
    quote:
    As long as there are no compelling arguments or evidence that show that God does not exist, atheism is a matter of faith, not rationality.
    Do you want to understand my reading or should we just leave it at that?

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 51 by RAZD, posted 02-27-2008 10:14 PM RAZD has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 59 by RAZD, posted 02-28-2008 9:20 PM Modulous has replied

      
    RAZD
    Member (Idle past 1404 days)
    Posts: 20714
    From: the other end of the sidewalk
    Joined: 03-14-2004


    Message 58 of 79 (458400)
    02-28-2008 7:19 PM
    Reply to: Message 55 by Sour
    02-28-2008 1:01 AM


    . I'm making a mistake by putting too much weight on the first sentence and thinking that it says he believes that God wanted him to do these things (which it does right?).
    Also see Rrhains comments in Message 25
    The way it is phrased is confusing, it doesn't seem to be asking if his 'firm inner conviction' is justified, but if his belief in his own 'firm inner conviction' is.
    Part of the problem is the true\false format.
    Aye yay yay, much ado about nothing
    Yep.
    Enjoy.
    Edited by RAZD, : added

    we are limited in our ability to understand
    by our ability to understand
    RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
    ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
    to share.


    • • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 55 by Sour, posted 02-28-2008 1:01 AM Sour has not replied

      
    RAZD
    Member (Idle past 1404 days)
    Posts: 20714
    From: the other end of the sidewalk
    Joined: 03-14-2004


    Message 59 of 79 (458433)
    02-28-2008 9:20 PM
    Reply to: Message 57 by Modulous
    02-28-2008 7:37 AM


    By answering true, you are explicitly saying that it (not believing in the existence of x) is not rational when it comes to God but it is rational when it comes to monsters.
    By answering true you are explicitly saying it is belief. It was a belief in 10, and it is still a belief in 14.
    When belief {A} is rational and belief not{A} is rational, then whether {A} or not{A} is rational is not relevant to -- does not predict -- the result.
    quote:
    10. If, despite years of trying, no strong evidence or argument has been presented to show that there is a Loch Ness monster, it is rational to believe that such a monster does not exist.
    It is a belief.
    quote:
    14. As long as there are no compelling arguments or evidence that show that God does not exist, atheism is a matter of faith, not rationality.
    It is the same kind of belief.
    As long as there is no compelling arguments or evidence one way or the other, it is as rational to believe one thing as the other. Therefore what you believe is a matter of faith rather than rationality.
    What critical element am I missing from the actual statements?
    That "it" - no matter how rational - is belief.
    That when you come to your conclusion, it is a matter of your faith in the truth of your belief - rather than rationality - that makes the difference.
    Do you want to understand my reading or should we just leave it at that?
    What I see it that you put all the emphasis on rationality, and ignore belief and that the other choice is equally rational. It's like being asked to choose one of two chips, and you say the reason you chose your chip is because it is blue when both chips are blue. The reason you chose your chip is because you liked it, not because it was blue.
    Enjoy.

    we are limited in our ability to understand
    by our ability to understand
    RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
    ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
    to share.


    • • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 57 by Modulous, posted 02-28-2008 7:37 AM Modulous has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 60 by Modulous, posted 02-28-2008 9:41 PM RAZD has replied

      
    Modulous
    Member
    Posts: 7801
    From: Manchester, UK
    Joined: 05-01-2005


    Message 60 of 79 (458438)
    02-28-2008 9:41 PM
    Reply to: Message 59 by RAZD
    02-28-2008 9:20 PM


    By answering true you are explicitly saying it is belief. It was a belief in 10, and it is still a belief in 14.
    Yes they are both beliefs, but the true/false statement isn't 'it is a belief'. The true/false statement is "it is rational to believe"
    As long as there is no compelling arguments or evidence one way or the other, it is as rational to believe one thing as the other. Therefore what you believe is a matter of faith rather than rationality.
    You suggest that not believing in Nessie is rational by answering true to that question. Then it is rational the second time too, right?
    That "it" - no matter how rational - is belief.
    Yet I have said numerous times that it is a belief. It's the type of belief that the statements are probing. Is it a rational belief or is it a belief centred around faith? Those are the options.
    That when you come to your conclusion, it is a matter of your faith in the truth of your belief - rather than rationality - that makes the difference.
    So believing Nessie does not exist is not rational, it is faith based - right?
    What I see it that you put all the emphasis on rationality, and ignore belief and that the other choice is equally rational.
    I don't ignore belief. They are beliefs and statement 10 makes this explicit. If not believing in Nessie is a rational belief so is not believing in God. If not believing in Nessie is not a rational belief then neither is not believing in God.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 59 by RAZD, posted 02-28-2008 9:20 PM RAZD has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 61 by RAZD, posted 03-01-2008 2:57 PM Modulous has replied

      
    Newer Topic | Older Topic
    Jump to:


    Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

    ™ Version 4.2
    Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024